I was waiting for Jim to start a thread explaining how this woman had all the rights in the world to not issue wedding certificates.

She is a Democrat. And as such, she may just be following the Democrat legal doctrine of "it's OK if we do it." Quite like Obama's Attorney General being ordered not to enforce various laws that Obama doesn't like.

So it's defendable to deny baking a cake but fine to deny a marriage license .

Got it Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a huge difference between the two. One is a private enterprise and the other is a government agency . I don't think people should be able to refuse service to anyone arbitrarily. Regardless The public has responded by boycotting said businesses .Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she is very wrong not to issue the license.....but in a private business U should have the right to serve or not to serve a person.

I had to laugh at the white house press secretary and hillery stating we R a country of laws....if that were the case obama should be in jail when it comes to illegals coming into the country....LOL....

Agree on the Public / Private. Being a public government employee the requirement to grant the license is stronger

So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?

I saw online something that is probably true : Would this get the coverage it is getting if it was a Muslim Clerk fighting to not give a license. Two PC protected classes duking it out. Add a third if the worker is a Union Member.

Nebe, the constitution gives the baker the right to act in accordance with his religiously informed conscience.

As others have said, you can't have an entire public agency unwilling to obey the law. If she didn't want to issue a license for religious reasons, it should be easy enough to have someonbe else in the office do it. But gay couples absolutely have the right to get the certificate from someone in that office.

That said, if she is subject to arrest for violating this law, why can't we arrest the officials of sanctuary cities for violating federal immigration laws?

No one died because this woman refused to issue mariage licenses. The officials of San Francisco have innocent blood on their hands, so why is this clerk in jail and not the mayor of San Francisco?

So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?

.

It's easy. Let someone else give the happy couple the license, or the cake, whatever it is. That way, the nuptuals can proceed, and no one has their constitutional rights trampled. Easy in theory. In practice it's a lot harder, because it requires liberals to display a tiny speck of the tolerance that they claim to have a monopoly on.

We give people religious exemptions from laws all the time. Conscientious objectors cannot be drafted and put in combat.

Regardless The public has responded by boycotting said businesses .Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with boycotting, if that's how the community feels, that's what they should do.

The bigger problem is that the baker was fined by the local government. Punished by the state, for the crime of adhering to their Christian beliefs, and THAT should scare all of us. Because even if you don't agree with that baker, if you don't defend his rights, then don't complain when the state takes away something you hold dear next.

I have no problem with boycotting, if that's how the community feels, that's what they should do.

The bigger problem is that the baker was fined by the local government. Punished by the state, for the crime of adhering to their Christian beliefs, and THAT should scare all of us. Because even if you don't agree with that baker, if you don't defend his rights, then don't complain when the state takes away something you hold dear next.

I don't disagree. Let the market dictate the business climate.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said on Thursday that Ms. Davis jailing was an act of “judicial tyranny,” and in a statement he called on “every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis.”

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas said on Twitter that he would go to Kentucky on Tuesday to support Ms. Davis. “We must end the criminalization of Christianity!” he wrote.

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, said he had “great respect” for Ms. Davis; he called for passage of federal and state laws to shield people in similar positions.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana linked the case of Ms. Davis, who refused to comply with a court order to issue wedding licenses, citing her religious beliefs, to the cases of florists and bakers who have been sued or fined for refusing their services for gay weddings

“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” Mr. Jindal told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

and some other viewsAt least three candidates, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Carly Fiorina, the former Silicon Valley executive, said that as a government employee Ms. Davis was obligated to carry out the law, despite personal religious objections.

In a radio interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Fiorina, who has been forceful about the rule of law, said, “Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as a government employee?”

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin appeared less clear on his position. Asked by the radio host Laura Ingraham on Thursday if Ms. Davis should be compelled to issue marriage licenses, Mr. Walker said:

“It’s a balance that you’ve got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion. That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.”

A number of Repub. pres. candidates are saying she should be allowed to not issue the licenses.

Here is the exact text of the first amendment regarding religion...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Nowhere in there, does it say that the right to freely exercise your religion, ends at the door of your office. Nor does it say that the freedom to exercise your religion stops at the point where someone's feelings are hurt.

We give religious exemptions to all kinds of laws. Why doesn't this woman deserve the same freedom? As long as there is someone else in the office who could easily grant the license, then there doesn't need to be an issue unless the activists want to make it an issue, which of course they do.

I am pro gay marriage. I am also pro-constitution.

I can see her getting fired. But put in jail? Because of her Christian beliefs?

Again, why isn't the mayor of every sanctuary city also in jail? Why do they get to violate the laws they don't happen to like, and get away with it?

[QUOTE=PaulS;“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” Mr. Jindal told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

[.”[/QUOTE]

In light of the first amendment of the constitution, what argument is there against what Goj Jindal said? Because what he said was, "I believe the first amendment protects all Americans, even Christians."

That notion is offensive to you, Paul?

Freedom of speech, like it or not, means an artist can hang a painting of Holy Mary covered in feces. Freedom of assembly, like it or not, means the Klan can hold a rally. Freedom of the press, like it or not, means Al Sharpton can have a show where he blames whitey for everything. Freedom to petition for redress of grievances, like it or not, means Willie Horton can get an audience with elected officials. And freedom of religion, like it or not, means that those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, should be able to distance themselves from it.

she was found in contempt of court for refusing to obey the court's order to issue the license. If you view that as the court ordering someone "to abandon a constitutionally protected belief" then I guess you can contact her lawyers and help fund an appeal of the ruling - but it looks like you would loose.

she was found in contempt of court for refusing to obey the court's order to issue the license. If you view that as the court ordering someone "to abandon a constitutionally protected belief" then I guess you can contact her lawyers and help fund an appeal of the ruling - but it looks like you would loose.

The US supreme Court also once ruled that slavery was OK. They are not infallible.

Read the first amendment, as it pertains to freedom of religion, and please then explain to me, through that lens, why it's OK to force her to do that which violates her religious beliefs. That you don't hold those beliefs, doesn't matter.

Can a court order a Jewish deli owner to serve shellfish? Or force a Muslim convenience store owner to serve pork? I don't think so.

Read the first amendment, as it pertains to freedom of religion, and please then explain to me, through that lens, why it's OK to force her to do that which violates her religious beliefs. That you don't hold those beliefs, doesn't matter.

Jim, it's an elected position. She ran for office. You don't run for office then decide you're going to object to clearly defined duties of the position you just willingly sought.